PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2007
6:00 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present were: Commissioners Robert Harper, John Evans and Carole Knoblock; County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger, Administrative Assistant Melissa Hartig and Recording Secretary Vi Wagner.

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE

President Harper called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of January 22, 2007, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF CLAIMS

Com. Knoblock moved to approve the claims of January 23, 2007, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes of December 5, 2006, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

BRIDGE FUND LOAN
David Hollenbeck, Attorney

Com. Harper, “Every year we are asked, the Commissioners and the Council, to approve money from the bridge fund until tax monies come in. I checked the fund and leaving ourselves a cushion of $500,000.00 we can authorize borrowing up to two and a half million. Do I hear a motion to approve the Council to borrow $2.5 million out of the Bridge Fund?”

Com. Evans moved to approve the loan from the Bridge Fund to the Council for $2.5 million dollars, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


JOHNSON CONTROLS SERVICE CONTRACT
Sheriff Dave Lain

Com. Harper, “I am going to skip over some things. We have Doug Snider with a service contract with Johnson Controls. This is just with all the locks at the jail, an add on with Johnson Controls Agreement. Let me just ask you this, is this more than a one year agreement? I was just glancing at it.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Here it says year 2, $4,500.00; year 3 $4,650.00 and year 4 $4,614.00 and then year 5 $4,800.00.”

Com. Harper, “What’s year 1?”

Com. Evans, “$5,000.00.”

Com. Harper, “Let me ask you this, Dave, do you think it would be a problem if we just approved it for next year or do you think that would be a problem?”

Sheriff Lain, “I don’t think that would be a deal breaker. I think for my own piece of mind I would like to have something so we can move forward on it. At least a year would be a stop-get measure.”

Com. Harper, “Why don’t I put it back on the agenda for three months to consider the rest, is that okay?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Or, we have a 30 day out if we give them written notice. I mean its five years and if we don’t like it we can give them thirty days.”

Com. Harper, “Okay, fine. Do I hear a motion?”

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract with Johnson Controls for the locks at the jail, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

USE OF EXPO HOUSE FOR CHILDREN’S ADVOCAY CENTER DISCUSSION
Cheryl Polarek, Prosecutor’s office

Com. Harper, “Cheryl’s gotten everybody a document that says the type of work. Have you seen the document, have you seen it, John? They’ve got a proposal for all the work that they intend to do out there. They are intending to do quite a bit of approval. It is my understanding we got a possible form contract so you can start work today. Mike Anton contacted me and he said he is satisfied with the way the insurance is set up except for those departments, all the departments, are going to have to show that use that facility, the certificate of insurance. He’s aware of all but one, and you can contact him. It is my understanding that while in the next four weeks you will be working on that lease, and you would like our permission to start doing the work out there.”

Ms. Polarek, “Yes, we’ve got contractors ready to go in as early as tomorrow morning. I would utilize the memorandum of understanding you guys sent over and work that up to your approval.”

Com. Harper, “And they are paid for all the work they do.”

Com. Evans, “We are taking care of the outside maintenance as far as the grounds.”

Ms. Polarek, “Exactly, that was in the proposal that the Commissioners would still maintain the property. We can iron out those disagreements but we would just like permission to start work on the facility.”

Com. Evans moved to proceed with the intent to use the building, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Let’s put this on the agenda for four weeks so we can get this, so we have a deadline to get this lease wrapped up. Do you have extra copies of this or not?”

Ms. Polarek, “I do not.”

Com. Harper, “Why don’t you just fax it over tomorrow, I know you gave me one.”

Ms. Polarek, “Okay, thank you.”

Com. Harper, “Anything else, Gwenn?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “No.”

APPOINTMENTS

Animal Welfare Board
Com. Harper, “I believe Donna Werner put her application in, is that correct?”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Donna Werner to the Animal Welfare Board,

Com. Evans, “The only thing I wonder is we post the dates and times for applications and both these applications we have here for board appointments are received after the deadlines to fill those boards. I just think that if they couldn’t get the application in that we filled the boards at the last meeting, we should stick with our agenda.”

Com. Harper, “Let me say that Donna Werner has been very active as a member of this board.”

Com. Evans, “I understand but I am just saying that if we set deadlines, we should adhere to the deadlines ourselves as well as those people that come seeking appointments.”

Com. Knoblock, “She thought she was automatically on unless we told her different.”

Com. Evans, “Okay, I am just giving my opinion.”

Com. Harper seconded, motion carried.

PTABOA

Com. Evans, “I have the same objection.”

Com. Harper, “Where are our applications for this?”

Com. Evans, “Under heading one.”

Com. Harper, “Do we have any other applications other than this?”

Com. Knoblock, “No.”

Ms. Hartig, “That was the County Assessor’s recommendation.”

Com. Knoblock moved to appoint Mr. LaFever to the PTABOA Board, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried, with Com. Evans voting against.

DLZ CONTRACT APPROVAL
Robert Thompson, Plan Commission Director

Com. Harper, “Last time, didn’t we have the first reading of the ordinance?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct. For independent storm water engineering, yes we did. That was scheduled for second reading.”

Com. Harper, “When is it scheduled, during the Plan Commission session?”

Mr. Thompson, “Yes.”

Com. Harper, “All right. So you have two things for our first reading, is that correct?”

Mr. Thompson, “Well, one is a letter of agreement with DLZ, and the storm water independent engineer that was chosen by the Plan Commission to review the documents was DLZ. With DLZ we have Mike Jabo in the back in case there are any questions. But I did send down copies of our actual agreement and the cost of doing the services to explain how that exactly is going to be. That at application time we will receive the check directly from the applicant made out to us and then we would pay out of our budget under consulting items to DLZ because DLZ does not want to deal directly with the applicant. We are the ones that will be dealing directly with the applicant. The services and what they have is a base fee of $125.00 for residential subdivision, $25.00 per lot and $40.00 per acre, which ever is greater. And industrial subdivisions are $125.00 per subdivision plus $55.00 per lot or $55.00 per acre. We would calculate that out in the office, determine whatever is greater, and have the applicant pay that at that time and then forward the project on to DLZ. We’ll give them a call and date stamp it as it comes in and in return we’ll get a report back from them on this. They will also in that sense work with the engineer, the petitioner’s engineer for any problems that might arise with the subdivision or the development that is being proposed. There is also another fee later and it’s a $200.00 site inspection fee. After secondary plat is approved, infrastructure is in, they want to release the performance guarantees on the subdivisions, they would submit as-built plans to the Plan Commission, we will review them and forward it on to DLZ and they will go out and do a site inspection to make sure that the development is done according to the as-built plans and the plans that were originally submitted. And that is a fee of $200.00 and the way we will structure that later is that before we release it for performance guarantees, essentially I sign the form that is later forwarded down to the Commissioners for acceptance and they must pay the $200.00 fee.”

Com. Harper, “Questions, Carole?”

Com. Knoblock, “No.”

Com. Harper, “John?”

Com. Evans, “No.”

Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion to approve the agreement with DLZ?”

Com. Knoblock moved to accept the agreement with DLZ, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion to approve the fee schedule set forth by Mr. Thompson?”

Com. Knoblock moved to accept the fee schedule,

Com. Evans, “I do have a little question. Is there a way to make sure you can, this is a much needed thing obviously, and it’s a way to go back and check and make sure we can get rid of a lot of the problems we have experienced in the past. But I think that there’s a potential here to create an undue burden to some extent. I mean, if they start running into problems and the fees start cranking up and up and up. Is there a do not exceed clause or something?”

Mr. Thompson, “That I would like to bring Mike Jabo up on that situation. Yes, there is that item that talks about that. During the review process if the engineers with DLZ sit there and say wow, there are a lot of things that are going on here, we would like to see this, this and this, and it comes back and the plats are substantially changed in what was originally submitted in the application, there is that part of the agreement you can see in there that talks about an hourly rate. And I mean that is one of the things I guess I am going to have to have Mike explain on what exactly a substantial change would be. But, I understand what your concern is on this.”

Mr. Jabo, “What our goal is, is to work with the engineers. We want everybody doing the right thing according to your ordinance. Generally, once everybody is on the same page, our experience has been that we don’t have that problem. There are the cases where the developer may submit something they want to do and then all of a sudden they change it completely for whatever reason. Then I would think that is when they are reviewing something totally different all over again. So the character of the design has changed since when they initially submitted it. Now I’ll be honest with you, if they submit it we can tell by the plans it’s not up to the county’s standards, we are not going to go detail to detail, because we are not going to design their work for them. We are just going to reject it and give them a letter saying please adhere to the county ordinance and resubmit it. So, the reason it is structured this way is in a lot of communities, they pay for every hourly engineer review. So the burden is on us to make sure we do a review that is concise and quick as possible but is also fair to everybody else. They’ve got to do their homework, too, so we’ll just keep rejecting it. So, I don’t know how to answer that precisely, but if someone changed their development totally as far as we are concerned that’s a whole new suggestion.”

Com. Evans, “I think you have pretty well covered it.”

Mr. Thompson, “There’s another thing. Mike and I were talking at the end of last week about this and before we get too far into this, Mike was suggesting the possibility that I contact the engineers who do work regularly and submit applications with the county and then we actually sit down and have a workshop with them. That way DLZ can sit down and expressly say we want to see this, this, this and this. We can try and work with them and tell them exactly what we want to see in an application to try to cut all that off. I thought it was a great idea. I know DLZ’s times were planning and I think that is something we can pay for in a consulting fee. Just to be able to help applicants understand this process we are going through.”

Com. Evans, “I am glad to see it’s been given a little fore thought.”

Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Let’s stop here a second. Do these have to have two separate readings?”

Com. Evans, “Yes, it involves a fee.”

Com. Harper, “All right. Go ahead, Bob.”


BUILDING, PLANNING, AND ZONING FUND FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. Thompson, “The next one we have is the Building, Planning and Zoning Fund Fee Schedule. On this we’ve agreed this ordinance, and everything the Commissioners are the ones in control of that. I have Mike Haller with me, the Building Commissioner, to also explain that. On the Plan Commission application side I can explain briefly the changes obviously the independent storm water engineer. I removed my subdivision fees and I also removed the site review application fee that was originally to the former board called TAC. It’s now the Development Advisory Committee and it is now in development plan phase, so that is the only one that’s changed in the Plan Commission side. Other items as far as office work, there is copy fees that are in. State Board of Accounts tells us that before we can charge a copy we must have the fee on our schedule so we worked out that. We also threw in a returned check and insufficient funds fee on that because we had to deal with the Prosecutor late last year on an insufficient funds check. Mike, on this, and if you have any questions on building on this, we did change some of the building fees on this. Multi family is one that jumps out at me, it was originally just $250.00 per unit which is if it’s a four unit building, it is $2,000.00. Mike felt that they get four CO sometimes and this could be four different, for example, plumbing inspections on these units and he did not feel that the fee adequately covered the costs the inspectors could have on multi units. So, we did change that and it is more in reflection to what exactly is charged for a single family or two family unit. So, Mike went through the building side and looked at it, and went through his fees to make sure he felt everything was fair and to work with the permits and his inspection schedules that he has to adhere to.”

Com. Harper, “Questions, John?”

Com. Evans, “Mike, in dealing with the other municipalities, would you say we are pretty much in the median with our fees?”

Mike Haller, “Oh, yeah. Some of that is state formulation. Basically a lot of it is consolidated and simplified and with that we just kind of redistributed the fee schedule to make it all come out the same anyway. Just as an example, you have about six different categories of accessory buildings and I whittled it down to three with the break being that the 1,200 maximum per subdivision which kind of helps the girls pick off the sizes properly.”

Mr. Thompson, “I should point out there is another fee that is being brought into it and it is the re-inspection fee that is new. Other municipalities do have that. I worked with Mike on this particular situation, that is a situation where they drive up for an inspection and the erosion control measures are not in place or not being maintained at all, it can red tag it and get the opportunity for them to fix it, possibly that day before they come back and do inspections. I think Mike can probably explain that better, especially in certain situations where they use red tags for violations to building codes.”

Com. Harper, “Carole, do you have any questions?”

Com. Knoblock, “No.”

Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion to approve this ordinance?”

Com. Evans moved to approve the ordinance of the fee structures, Com. Knoblock seconded motion carried.

Com. Harper, “We will put it back on the agenda for, all three of these will be back on the agenda in two weeks.”

Mr. Thompson, “Do you want me to hold onto the agreements until then?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “I would.”

Mr. Thompson, “Okay, I could hold onto them and bring them down next time for signatures.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Well, technically, we will probably approve the contract with DLZ today for the fee schedule, by ordinance.”

Mr. Thompson, “All right. Good, thank you.”

APPROVAL FOR CLAIMS PROCEDURAL CHANGE
Lindy Wilson, Chief Deputy, Auditor’s office

Com. Harper, “Is there anyone here on that? Come on up and tell us about it.”

Ms. Wilson, “Mr. Kopp has gone skiing this week, wish I was there.”

Com. Harper, “Water skiing or snow skiing?”

Ms. Wilson, “Snow skiing. He went to Denver.”

Com. Harper, “I don’t wish I was there.”

Com. Evans, “Just as long as he doesn’t break something.”

Ms. Wilson, “That’s true. Mr. Kopp is looking at a way to expedite paying the claims. He’s checked with other counties, checked with LaPorte County and they pay theirs every two weeks. I am assuming that you all got a copy of his recommendation. He pretty much lays it all out there, I don’t have a lot more to tell you about it than what he already has.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Did he have some concerns about the mechanics of it?”

Com. Evans, “The only thing is if he, he wants in essence, two Commissioners to review all the claims and then get back to your office as to their acceptability or if we have a question, it will be put on hold until the next meeting and get checked out. To do that is fine and I think it is a great idea and I think it will get a lot more people that want to do business with the county, because currently people say you know what, I would be interested in bidding that but you guys don’t pay people for 60 to 90 days or 120 days. And it is not uncommon and it is all because of our claims process. So I think this would speed this up. But my question is there are times when we are not going to be able to sit down and do that. You are going to have to email them to the newspaper for publication so that it can occur in the same process as our approval, will you accept or will Mr. Kopp the Auditor, accept an email return with the highlighted claims that we question. I would rather do it by email or fax, which ever you prefer.”

Ms. Wilson, “I am sure he would.”

Com. Evans, “And we could do it that way rather than if he wants me to sign off on each one individually, he is going to have to chase me down. But if he can email it to me and I can have a day to look at it, I would be fine with getting back to him as long as he will accept the manner in which it comes back.”

Com. Knoblock, “Melissa takes a lot of heat from that, too.”

Com. Evans, “Yes, everybody does, it is just an archaic form and an archaic system that exists and everybody has to go through the little checks and balances. And if this will expedite payroll, paying our vendors, I am all for it.”

Ms. Wilson, “And if other counties are already doing it, it must be a proven way to do it that will work.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “But, LaPorte County Board of Commissioners meet weekly…..”

Com. Evans, “I don’t think they meet weekly, I think they just review the claims on a weekly basis like has prescribed here.”

Ms. Wilson, “I haven’t talked to them so I don’t know personally.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “If they drop them off at noon on Tuesday, and there’s not two Commissioners here to do it on Tuesday, then there’s not approval.”

Com. Evans, “Right, but you could email them to me and I will go through them and I can certainly call on the phone if I’ve got a question about it.”

Ms. Wilson, “So are you recommending he email them to each of the Commissioners as opposed to trying to find somebody here?”

Com. Evans, “Yes, he is going to have to email them the papers, so you know, just copy that email to us.”

Com. Harper, “So do we need a formal motion?”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “Not really but it couldn’t hurt. It is a good idea to bring this to the board so everybody understood how we were going to handle it.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the Auditor’s request to expedite payment to our vendors, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Did you get an EDIT check in today or in the last few days?”

Ms. Wilson, “CEDIT? Yes.”

Com. Harper, “Where does it go?”
Ms Wilson, “That’s up for discussion apparently.”

Com. Harper, “Why is that?”

Ms. Wilson, “Well, because this is a special distribution and I am totally brand new at this, and there is a letter telling how much each entity would be getting, but not exactly how they wanted it distributed because it has to go into a Rainy Day Fund.”

Com. Harper, “Why?”

Ms. Wilson, “It’s by statute and Mr. Dave Hollenbeck brought over the statute today to show me that it needs to go into a Rainy Day Fund by law. So apparently the Council is going to have to create a Rainy Day Fund for that.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “It calls it a Rainy Day Fund?”

Ms. Wilson, “Yes, it does.”

Com. Harper, “And then where does it go, into the separate EDIT accounts? Or where does it go then?”

Ms. Wilson, “I am not sure.”

Com. Evans, “Has to be distributed by plan.”

Com. Harper, “Before you leave tonight, could you leave us a copy of the letter you got from the state and also that statute? I would appreciate that.”

Ms. Wilson, “Yes, I would be glad to do that.”

Ms. Hartig, “Will I be responsible for making sure they know the claims are approved or are you guys just going to deal directly with the Auditor’s office?”

Com. Evans, “No, we will give them back to you, that way we can keep a handle on it.”

REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS

North District:

1. Judy Acres Subdivision Road Agreement, located on the north side of CR 900 North between CR 500 East and CR 550 East. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $750.00. Recommend approval.

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Center District:

1. Vernon Woods Subdivision Acceptance Form and Maintenance Letter of Credit #2230090460 from First Financial Bank in the amount of $87,200.00. Recommend approval.

Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

2. Eagle View Subdivision Acceptance Form and Maintenance Letter of Credit from First State Bank of Porter in the amount of $119,800.00. Recommend approval.

Com. Harper moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.

GOETZ LANDSCAPING CONTRACT APPROVAL

Com. Harper, “You’ve seen it, John?”
Com. Evans, “Yes, I have.”

Com. Harper, “And did we pass it out to everyone?”

Ms. Hartig, “No, I didn’t know he was coming tonight.”

Com. Harper, “They have taken care of our grounds for the . . .”

Com. Evans, “It’s less than last year. 30% less.”

Com. Harper, “They do work at the Fairgrounds, all the different grounds, taking care of the trees and the weeding and so forth. And the total for this year would be, with everything recommended, would be how much?”

Mr. Goetz, “Thirty six.”

Com. Evans, “I think he has done a great job, there is tremendous improvement, we don’t have weeds growing out of everything. You can actually tell, even I can tell which ones are plants and which ones are the weeds now and it has really been a good thing. We’ve gotten a lot of good comments, I appreciate it.”

Com. Evans moved to accept the contract with Goetz Landscaping, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

CORRESPONDENCE

Treasurer’s monthly report for December 2006 is on file.

Approval of maintenance agreement with Great Lakes Automatic Door for the Courthouse and North County Complex

Com. Evans moved to approve the maintenance agreement with Great Lakes Automatic Door for the Courthouse ($224.00) and North County ($330.00), Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Approval of Consultant Agreement with Attorney Matthew Soliday and the Animal Welfare Board for legal services for 2007 in the amount of $5,370.00

Com. Harper, “I think Matt does a good job for the Animal Welfare Board and the Animal Shelter.”

Com. Evans moved to accept the contract,

Com. Evans, “And I would echo your comments and also note that the Board could approve his hiring on their own motion. He has been their contracted attorney for several years but to actively go out and solicit and interview attorneys, but Matt has done an outstanding job for them.”

Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Certification of Covered Bridges in Porter County

Com. Evans, “I’ll certify that we have one that is in terrible condition and I still would like to move it to the Porter County Parks.”

Com. Knoblock, “Where is the covered bridge?”

Com. Evans, “It’s on the Calumet Trail, behind a trailer park in Pine Township, north of Highway 12 that covers, or spans, a creek that is the home for a hundred juvenile delinquents because they pull the siding off the bridge, they write all over it, it’s decimated. Really, it is a terrible looking structure. So, we certify that we have one in very poor repair.”
Com. Evans certified to one covered bridge in Porter County, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Request by Jerome Szikora to continue renting 24 acres of county property for $50.00 per acre for farming purposes

Com. Evans moved to accept, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Request for Board of Commissioners to endorse letter and grant application on behalf of Kankakee Valley Historical Society

Com. Evans moved to approve the request, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Approval for Community Action Drug Coalition to use the Courthouse lawn for 4th annual “Walk Away From Drugs” event for May 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Com. Harper, “I believe they already said they had their certificate of insurance.”

Com. Evans moved to approve the request with proof of insurance, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

PETITION FOR ORDINANCE REVOCATION
Attorney Robert Welsh

Com. Harper, “Okay, this is Petition for Revocation of Ordinance #05-14, Establishment of Easement over Tremont Road and Vacation of a Portion of Tremont Road.”

Atty. Welsh, “Commissioners, I am here tonight on behalf of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District in regard to a small stretch of county road which lies between Highway 12 and the NICTD Railroad right of way which is as you probably all know, the old Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. The roadway is called Tremont Road, it lies Porter or 3/8’s of a mile approximately east of the intersection of Highway 12 and State Road 149. The reason I am here is that in August of 2005, the National Lakeshore Park, as a division of the United States Department of the Interior, petitioned the Board of Commissioners to have this small stretch of road, which is only about 140 feet long from the north side of 12 to the railroad right of way, to have that stretch of road vacated. And that is a legal procedure governed by Indiana Statute. The National Lakeshore Park attempted to follow that statute. They looked at the ownership of land adjoining this Tremont Road and from the Auditor’s records concluded that the land was owned by the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad on the north. And that was true back in the 1980’s when the plan maps in the Auditor’s office were compared. However, since that time, that railroad went into bankruptcy, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District was created by state legislature and given the opportunity to buy that railroad, the railroad’s assets, out of bankruptcy and that happened and so now the property that adjoins Tremont Road is not owned by Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad but by Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. So, that when the National Lakeshore attempted to follow the statute to give notice to adjoining land owners of their request to this Board to vacate that little section of Tremont Road they sent that notice to the old office of the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad and not to the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, who in fact owns the right of way that joins the proposed vacated property. On August 2, I believe, the Board of Commissioners heard that petition and nobody being aware of this inadvertent error, went ahead and approved the vacation as requested. Sometime thereafter, NICTD was alerted to the fact that this had happened and I engaged Gwenn in some conversation about the idea that we would like to mention accord with the National Park Service, and the Board of Commissioners, about having that action revoked so that we could come to you and ask you to allow us to have an easement, not exclusive, but an easement for ingress and egress over the area of Tremont Road that had been requested to be vacated so that we can get to signalization and track equipment on our right of way in the Tremont Road area. And that would be available to vacating the old ordinance, if you rescind that old ordinance vacating Tremont Road, and then give us the non-exclusive easement, we would then go on by agreement with the National Lakeshore Park, to then have the roadway vacated. That would relieve the situation the NICTD would have a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress to it’s track improvements and signalization equipment located in that area, on the old Tremont Road right of way, you would continue to own the land, it just wouldn’t be a public right of way. If you had a desire for example to let someone else have an easement to get back in there for some reason or another, that’s why this is a non exclusive easement, it gives you the right and we understand that. So, that’s basically the balance on this, and I have prepared for your consideration this evening, an ordinance which would do exactly what I’ve spoken of if it meets your approval. First, it would revoke Ordinance 05-14 from August 2, 2005, second, it would establish a non exclusive easement for ingress and egress in favor of NICTD which would allow it to get to its track for improvement and signalization equipment in that area. And last, once that’s done it would go forward, as I discussed with the National Park Service and vacate Tremont Road once again. So, you have I hope in front of you a copy of the approved ordinance with a copy of the proposed easement attached to it for your records as Exhibit A. Separately from that is the actual easement which if this all seems to make sense and meets with your approval, we would have you sign and that actual easement would get recorded. I did mention to you that I coordinated this with the National Lakeshore Park Service and I have done that specifically with the park superintendent from the National Lakeshore, Gary Trainam, and done that all the way along. He has had copies of the petition, we’ve had personal consultations on this, he’s had his legal counsel for the Park Service in Omaha review everything. He was aware of the meeting this evening. As a matter of fact, he told me he would attempt to attend. So, if you could speak for yourselves if I say anything wrong or you need to elaborate. In any event, the Park Service and I have coordinated all this to our mutual satisfaction in the hope that it will likewise meet with yours. So if you have any questions, I’ll try to answer them.”

Com. Harper, “Your attorney is involved in this?”

Gary Trainam,, “U.S. Solicitors reviewed it, they are in complete concurrence and they are very appreciative of Mr. Welsh’s creative methods of addressing this issue. We could not have done it otherwise.”

Com. Harper, “What are you trying to do?”

Atty. Welsh, “What all lawyers try to do….”

Com. Evans, “You want to be able to get to the signals to maintain them.”

Com. Harper, “What does the National Lakeshore try to do?”

Com. Evans, “They want to close the road so it isn’t public access from Tremont, from north…”

Mr. Trainam, “It is a short distance but it would include any access should we take ownership based on the vacation that was previously authorized by the Commission.”

Atty. Welsh, “What is happening here, Bob, is before they ever came in with their petition to you, NICTD previously had a petition to close off that road at the intersection of the road with the railroad right of way and that was granted years ago by the Board of Commissioners and so there were guard rails put up so that traffic would not longer be able to go on Tremont Road in a normal direction over the rail road tracks, and that was for safety purposes to try to avoid train-car collisions. I think what has disturbed the National Lakeshore Park is that since that has happened, that may be an area for dumping or for parking or whatever, and so when they had the petition in front of the Board and it was approved afterwards, they removed the asphalt so that is no longer a road from Highway 12, it doesn’t appear as a road. And it’s not an invitation for that kind of thing we want. We are happy with that, too. The only thing is we want to be able to get to our signalization equipment which is in the area of Tremont Road and the rail road for maintenance purposes and for road maintenance. By the way in accordance with the statute, we have an actual legal publication which I have given the proof of publication to Gwenn for tonight’s meeting and this hearing.”

Com. Harper, “So, even with the publication, we need to do this whole thing.”

Com. Evans, “We need to hold this as a public hearing.”

Atty. Rinkenberger, “I think we do need to hold this as a public hearing. Open it as a public hearing.”

Com. Harper, “I am going to open this a public hearing. Is there anyone that wants to speak for or against this petition? Okay, I will close the public hearing. Do I hear a motion?”

Com. Evans moved to approve the revocation of Ordinance No. 05-14 and accept the new Ordinance No. of 07-01 that will replace it, and to approve the easement granting NICTD the right to get their signalization,

Com. Harper, “It’s all in one motion?”

Com. Evans, “Yes, all in one motion.”

Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to suspend the rules, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Evans moved to approve on 2nd reading Ordinance 07-01 and accept the easement, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

PLAN COMMISSION

Rezone I2 to RR, Porter County Plan Commission, 2nd reading
Robert Thompson, Director

Mr. Thompson, “First one up, is Plan Commission Resolution 06-11. This is Petitioner Porter County Plan Commission, parcel of land that was zoned I2, General Industry to be rezoned to RR, Rural Residential. This is second reading. The Plan Commission gave an unfavorable recommendation, Commissioners did amend the original petition, rezone a portion of the original petition and I guess to explain where we are at is it is also scheduled for tomorrow night’s Plan Commission meeting to review and hear the amendment that was approved by the Commissioners under state statute.”

Com. Harper, “The amendment was to rezone the parcel to I2 with the exception of that land that was owned by the Washington Township School Corporation, is that correct?”

Mr. Thompson “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “I mean, to rezone it to RR from I2 with the exception of that land owned by the Washington Township School.”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “Public hearing is closed.”

Mr. Thompson, “This is 2nd reading.”

Com. Harper, “So there’s not a public hearing at second reading, correct?”

Mr. Thompson, “Right.”
Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion to rezone that parcel we did at first meeting?”

Com. Knoblock moved to rezone the parcel,

Com. Harper, “Discussion?”

Com. Evans, “Is this the point where we offer Mr. Bucher some baubles and beads for extorting his land like the pilgrims did from the Indians?”

Com. Harper, “Is that the discussion?”

Com. Evans, “That’s my discussion.”

Com. Harper seconded, motion carried with Com. Evans voting against.

Amendment to Storm Water Control Ordinance, 2nd reading

Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution 06-12, Porter County Plan Commission request an amendment to the Storm Water Control Ordinance which requests, or for petition, being submitted to the Plan Commission by an independent engineer can review the storm water applications that are submitted to the Plan Commission.”

Com. Evans moved to approve on 2nd reading, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.

Com. Harper, “Anything else? Ms. Knoblock, anything else? Mr. Evans?”

Mr. Thompson, “May I explain one thing?”

Com. Harper, “I didn’t think you were done.”

Mr. Thompson, “I should go back and explain. This one case is going to be heard at the Plan Commission tomorrow night to give a recommendation basically on the amended ordinance this year at the Commissioners. If the Plan Commission agrees to it, it becomes law. I’ll bring the ordinances down. If the Plan Commission does not agree with it, it gets forwarded back for a recommendation in denial in which case I will then have to schedule a (inaudible) for a Commissioner hearing again. Probably the first meeting in February. I don’t know that, I will have to wait until after the Plan Commission meets, but again this procedure is in state statute and the procedure that is just described to the Plan Commission.”

Com. Evans, “I will not be at our next regularly scheduled meeting. So, I don’t want it to come before us when I can’t be here.”

Mr. Thompson, “Would you like to have it the second meeting in February?”

Com. Evans, “Yes.”

Mr. Thompson, “I will schedule it.”

Com. Harper, “We got into that before, didn’t we? When we did the green space ordinance?”

Mr. Thompson, “Correct.”

Com. Harper, “Anything else?”





Com. Evans moved to recess, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.


BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

Robert P. Harper
John A. Evans
Carole M. Knoblock

Attest: James K. Kopp, Auditor